Skip to comments.Democrats deny parallels between Presidents Obama and Carter
Posted on 04/07/2012 5:47:21 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Democrats deny parallels between Presidents Obama and Carter By Alexander Bolton - 04/07/12 08:00 AM ET
Democrats say the political prognosis for President Obama is much better than it was at the same point in former President Jimmy Carter's first term, even though the pace of the nation's job growth has slowed.
Obama was set back Friday by disappointing jobs numbers but the economy still created jobs at a faster pace than under Carter or former President George H.W. Bush, two of only four presidents to lose re-elections in the last 100 years.
Jobs are growing at a substantially faster clip than they did in 1980, when Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide, and 1992, when Bush lost narrowly to Bill Clinton.
Obamas three-month average for 2012 is also better than the job growth former President George W. Bush saw when he was re-elected in 2004.
The economy is creating more jobs than it did in 2000, when former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tenn.) fumbled the handoff of the White House from Clinton, or 2004 when George W. Bush held off a strong challenge from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
But jobs are not growing as fast as 1988, when then-Vice President George H.W. Bush successfully ran on Reagans economic record, or 1996, when Clinton won a second White-House term. Bush and Clinton won easily in those years.
While many political experts predicted this years presidential election would come down to the economy, the middling nature of the recovery signals that campaign tactics and the candidates performances may prove more decisive.
The expectations of his situation are that the economy is going to be good enough that Obama can win but not so good that hes going to have an easy re-election, said Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at the University of California and director of UCs Washington Center. Its sufficiently ambiguous that Republicans can envision [the economy] as a winning issue for them.
When the structural conditions are like that, the amount of money, the quality of the candidate and the guts of the campaign mean a lot more, he added.
The economy created 110,000 nonfarm jobs in March, compared to 240,000 in February and 275,000 in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. On average, jobs increased by 0.16 percent per month, considerably better than the 10-month average before the 1980 and 1992 elections.
The nations labor force grew by an average of 0.075 percent a month during the10 months leading up to the 1980 general election, according to survey data of employers kept on file by BLS.
Carters political hopes were killed by dismal jobs reports in April, May, June and July of that year, a span in which the economy shed 1.16 million jobs. Strong jobs reports in August and October made up for the losses but fell short of saving Carters presidency.
Political experts say Obama is in a much stronger position than Carter, the only Democratic president to lose re-election in more than 120 years.
The situation was totally different. Interest rates were in the ionosphere, 14 percent and 16 percent to finance various projects. Carter had a difficult term in dealing with his own party. The thing that was the dagger that went into his political heart was the botched hostage rescue in Iran, said former Sen. Richard Byran (D-Nev.), who was serving as attorney general of Nevada before winning election to Congress.
Republican strategists say the unemployment rate is not the only salient statistic in this election year. They argue Obama will be hurt by rising prices as Carter was by inflation more than thirty years ago.
If your benchmark is Jimmy Carter, you are headed for the front of the one-term presidents pack, said Sean Spicer, communications director the Republican National Committee. Look at healthcare costs, college tuition costs, energy costs, groceries. Everything that matters is headed in the wrong direction.
Democratic strategists say Obama does not need to get the unemployment rate down to a specific number to win as long as voters see steady improvement.
The presidents in much better shape than President Carter, whom I worked for a long time ago, said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant who worked as a young staffer on Carters campaign. Inflation was astronomical and malaise had set into the country. Americans were held hostage in Iran.
The present situation is diametrically opposite, Devine added. Its been 25 consecutive months of private sector job growth.
George H.W. Bush endured even worse jobs numbers than Carter during the ten-month stretch leading to his 1992 loss. The economy suffered a net loss of jobs in only one month, February. But the job creation in other months was anemic. Only 267,000 jobs were created January, March, June, July and September, cumulatively. The workforce increased by an average of 0.0738 percent.
Obamas burden is the national unemployment rate is higher this year than it was in 1992 and 1980. A Labor Department survey of households reported the national unemployment rate at 8.2 percent in March. It was 8.3 percent in January and February.
The nations unemployment rate averaged 7.5 percent in the ten months before the 1992 election and 7.1 percent in 1980.
Obama inherited a much worse economy than Bush senior, who took control of the White House when the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent. Carter took office when the rate was 7.5 percent, the same as it was in November of 1980. It was 7.8 percent when Obama swore his oath of office in January of 2009.
Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who served as senior advisor to Gores 2000 presidential campaign, said Obama will win if the economy continues to show improvement. But he warned that the climb to victory would be much tougher if the economy shows mixed signals.
People arent expecting you to be at 3.9 percent unemployment. They want to get a sense that things are turning around, he said. So long as data is out there that things are beginning to turn around in the right direction, he wins. If the data is inconsistent, its a much bigger challenge.
Just an odd observation....but they both got Nobel Peace Prize awards...it’s just that Jimmy had to work for a number of years to get his, and the President just got it for becoming the President. If you ask me....Jimmy probably rates a notch above the President...which is sad when you have to compare the two in the same bucket.
Big difference. Carter was and remains the quintessential Useful Idiot in the advance of communism.
Barry is an actual practicing communist willingly and knowingly doing everything he can to push the advance of communism.
So yes. A very big difference.
Carter is more of a bitter whack-job now than he was as President, but, at least he didn’t insult me and my beliefs on a daily basis, or appear to be deliberately trying to undermine American traditions in every aspect of life. In his day, I think he was more incompetent and clueless than malevolent.
From that perspective, IMO, he’s different from ‘the One’.
Parallels nothing ..
The messiah is a million times worse than the malaisey one.
I’m sure - Carter is a much better President than Obama - neither of course needs or needed to be in the office!
Pretty sad that the media is still providing a cover for Obama - he’s a failure under what the US Republic should be - but a highly successful socialist in everything he has accomplished in the last 3 yrs!
The Democrats are right: Carter and Obama are different!!
1) Obama cranks the heat at the white house while Carter wore a cardigan sweater and kept the thermostat at 68!
2) Carter served in the military while we don’t even know if Obama filled out a selective service card
3) Obama bows to foreign leaders while Carter just smiled.
4) Carter could operate an umbrella successfully while Obama struggles.
5) Carter was born in Georgia. We have NO CLUE were Obama was born.
The reason that this won't work, is that there is a flaw in the design of the algorithm used to calculate the unemployment rate: it is a systematic error which excludes the long-term unemployed, and over-rates part-term and underemployment.
Guess which disaffected voters have the most incentive to vote Obaama OUT, and will be least affected by the weak efforts at propaganda.
A life without money or prospects has a way of focusing one's priorities and honing the ol' bullshit detector.
NO Cheers, unfortunately.
The parallels are not yet complete, They will be as soon as election day is over. I don’t care how many hoodies are at the polls, zer0 is one and done.
Jimmah could never match Berry’s PAIR OF DOWNGRADES.
I noticed that in virtually ALL accounts by the MSM the word "disappointing" preceded the words "job numbers" or "employment figures". It was the Word of the Day.
We didn't read "appalling job numbers", "disgusting job numbers", "disturbing job numbers", "predictable job numbers", "unforgiveable job numbers", "scary job numbers" or "unacceptable job numbers".
Nope, the media used "disappointing" when citing those inconvenient numerical statistics that came up suddenly and hit our poor, young president in the face.....causing him to become a "disappointed" and unfortunate victim of uncontrollable forces.
"Disappointing job numbers" is obviously the best phrase the interlocking mediawhores could come up with to turn a destructive perp into an innocent victim to be sympathized with.
LOL, oh sure, if it isn't working out the way you thought it would, why just change the parameters.
When He ran the first time, I called Obama “Carter II”. Now I call Carter “Obama I”. Obama is so bad that I would vote for Carter this year just to get Obama out of there. And Jimmy Carter was absolutely awful.
I would vote for a termite instead of Obama.
Yeah, Obama out-Cartered Carter ages ago.
Peas in the pod, RATS
Carter was MUCH better
Just proves the Nobel committee is on drugs...
Well, we do have some clues but they don't agree entirely with each other.